Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CNBC 4
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
CNBC
Feb 6, 2013 12:00am EST
'd say that. >> and we found that the pentagon is saying it too. the defense advanced research projects agency, known as darpa, did its own analysis, and we obtained this internal memo that concludes there is: do you feel vindicated after all these years? >> i don't have any real need for vindication. i know what i've seen. >> that was a pretty big smile on your face, though. >> it is good. it's not bad. certainly, it's good. >> the pentagon is funding more experiments at the naval research lab in washington, d.c., and at mckubre's lab in california. we wondered what richard garwin would think of the defense department's appraisal. "the experiments leave no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced." >> well, that's a statement. >> you just don't buy that. >> well, i am living proof that there's doubt. now, they can say that excess heat is being produced, but they can't say there's no doubt. all they can say is, they don't doubt, but i doubt. >> if you asked me, "is this gonna have any impact on our energy policy?" it's impossible to say, because we don't fundamentally understand the
CNBC
Feb 6, 2013 12:00pm EST
of cash. he was very confident pentagon ab -- confident being able to self-fund the transformation and key to whether they attract new customers. as far as comp sales issues, he is coming up against significantly softer comps this year and you may see growth. antidotally we heard their holiday period was pretty good and were able to attract new customers and get some traction. >> finally, stacy, i wouldn't call it a potshot but a shot across the bow the shorts saying investors these days try to make money in what he called short artificial ways. deserved or not? >> i think that's -- that's the environment. there will be short term investors looking at this stock. he wants us to focus on long term. the short term reality is comps are down 30 something percent probably this quarter. the short term is what we have to look at. >> fascinating stuff today. thank you very much for your insight. we'll talk to you later. let's get back to headquarters and the halftime. >>> carl thank you very much. we go to the halftime show. the dow is down a point. one market watcher says the s&p will drop 200 po
CNBC
Feb 7, 2013 6:00am EST
to see you. i wanted to put this up. this is what's on the cover of "usa today." pentagon warns of huge cuts. when you think about what's going on in washington, right now, and you think about the sequester that may or may not happen, and you think about your history in washington, do you think that we will have the sequester? >> andrew, i don't know. i think it's a very complicated situation. i think we had a great opportunity and i actually thought there was some reasonable chance it might happen, which was to have a grand bargain that could have addressed what is really unsustainable and deeply dangerous long-term fiscal situation and i think if we had done that, not only would be useful for the long run but i think could have generated confidence in the shorter run and promote jobs now. now instead of that we have a happen has 5rd process. a sequester we're facing. it's a terrible piece of legislation. it arbitrarily cuts defense and nondefense without thoughtfully doing so. instead of being phased in so we'd have more room for recovery, it hits abruptly. and it's far, far from clea
CNBC
Feb 11, 2013 6:00am EST
's not going to be any opportunity to cut pentagon spending in any serious way if you don't go over the cliff. so there is some stuff in there that i as a democrat don't like. but i think everybody's going to put something in the pot in order to balance the deficit. we did a lousy job in january on the tax side and i hope that -- i think it's better to go over the cliff than do a lousy job -- >> how many people do you know on your side of the field who actually agree with you? >> very few. look they're politicians. they want to spend as much money as they possibly can and they don't want to pay for it. >> who agrees with you? >> oh, i don't know. i bet -- oh, god, joe agrees with me. >> you forgot. the other thing, howard, and i'm just alluding to it, there will be no return to the bush era tax rates on anyone under $400,000? >> right. >> okay. so take that amount of money, whatever that is per year. how much do you need -- how many loopholes do you need to close? what is the marginal rate have to be on people above 400 to replace that potential revenue? it's 100%, isn't it? >> but i don't --
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4